From the Washington Post (can't post link, mobile version is different)

Quote

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's (R) comment at an NRA event this weekend that "waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists" is earning some criticism from a group that is otherwise often aligned with Palin: conservative Christians.

Here's a sampling:

From Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition:

For anyone to confess Christ as their savior and to compare one of the means of God's grace to a reprehensible act of torture is reprehensible. I hope members of Gov. Palin's local church will explain to her why her remarks denigrate the Christian faith. Such remarks bring shame on the Body of Christ and to our witness in the world. Even more shameful, however, is the fact that so many Christians would cheer her support of torture (and yes, waterboarding is torture).

Gov. Palin was attempting to appeal to the basest political populism (nothing in her remarks could be construed as genuinely conservative) by claiming that current U.S. counterterrorism policy is overly-tolerant and empathetic toward our enemies. She contends that proper policies would "put the fear of God into our enemies."

Unfortunately, what Palin is proposing is a mixture of pagan ethics and civil deistic religion.

From Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist:

When my husband (who was baptized 10 years ago today, as it happens) told me about this, I had a hard time believing that she actually said it. Not just because baptism couldn't be taken more seriously in traditional Christianity but because the media routinely misquote or fail to provide context for quotes. But the video makes the statement seem even worse.

So why did the crowd cheer when she said it? And why did some folks defend or downplay the statement on Twitter? I couldn't begin to say, but they shouldn't have done so.

The Lutheran catechism, which I have here on my shelf, is a collection of teachings for the church. A teaching aid for family use, it goes through the commandments and creed and sacraments and what not. The section on the sacrament of baptism explains what baptism is -- the water connected to God's word; what that word of God is -- the Gospel of Jesus, and what baptism gives us:

From Rod Dreher of the American Conservative:

OK, stop. Not only is this woman, putatively a Christian, praising torture, but she is comparing it to a holy sacrament of the Christian faith. It's disgusting -- but even more disgusting, those NRA members, many of whom are no doubt Christians, cheered wildly for her.

...

Palin and all those who cheered her sacrilegious jibe ought to be ashamed of themselves. For us Christians, baptism is the entry into new life. Palin invoked it to celebrate torture. Even if you don't believe that waterboarding is torture, surely you agree that it should not be compared to baptism, and that such a comparison should be laughed at. What does it say about the character of a person that they could make that joking comparison, and that so many people would cheer for it. Nothing good -- and nothing that does honor to the cause of Jesus Christ.

And finally, from Andrew Sullivan:

What can one say but that this is a bona fide fascistic sentiment. It revels in violence against individuals tied down by their hands and feet and strapped to a terrifying board[1] in order to be suffocated hundreds of times to near-death. It is the kind of statement you might expect from the Khmer Rouge, or from the Chinese Communists who perfected "stress positions", or from the Nazis, whose Gestapo pioneered "enhanced interrogation", i.e. brutal torture that would leave no physical traces. Except it's worse than that. Even totalitarian regimes have publicly denied their torture. Their reticence and lies are some small concession of vice to the appearance of virtue. Not Palin - who wants to celebrate brutal torture as the American way.

And then she manages to go one step further. She invokes torture in the context of a Christian sacrament. Not since the Nazis' Deutsche Christen have we seen something so disgusting and blasphemous in the morphing of Christianity into its polar opposite. Mercifully, some Christians on the right have managed to say something.

The reason why I say this is because Christians promote torture everywhere: the Christian Cross is a torture device; used as a torture device as late as the mid 20th century. They promote torture on their churches, in their churches, in their homes, around their necks, on their cars, on billboards-everywhere torture devices and though sometimes a man they call Jesus isn't NAILED TO IT, doesn't negate the fact that it is still a torture device. It is not a sign of peace unless you call being hung and/or nailed to a cross peaceful? I sure as hell don't.

So, based on the guised nature of Christianity being "peaceful" by using a torture device as their "peace sign", what did she say--in concern to her religion--that was wrong?

-Nam

« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 11:18:19 PM by Nam »

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

The widespread display of the cross isn't intended to celebrate or promote torture. It's used to remind Christians that Jesus died on a cross to take our punishment upon Himself.

It's a poor argument Nam. Palin said something very very silly.

Bullshit. You have a book that tells you how he died, you[1] do not need the actual device to show people as if it's something to admire and praise. And whether she said something "silly" is irrelevant. You[2] use a torture device (with a book about it) as a tool to bring Biblegod to people so how is it different suggesting waterboarding (on the assumption one would) one to Jesus? I see, because one is just to look at, yet, the other is interactive. It's still promoting torture--Catholicism, from what I have seen and read, is all about torturing yourself and though Protestantism doesn't have such flagellation (figurative and literal) they too have their ways of bringing "torture" to the table.

The widespread display of the cross isn't intended to celebrate or promote torture. It's used to remind Christians that Jesus died on a cross to take our punishment upon Himself.

Silly question:

Do you honestly think that there are Christians out there who would be in danger of forgetting that the son of god was tortured and died for your salvation without a visual reminder? Or is this more of a 'brand reinforcement' sorta thing?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

shit. The bolded is your choice of how to interpret the display of the cross. It doesn't make it a correct interpretation.

Yeah, that's why Christian stores sell them with plaques that have beautiful sayings, and why people place jewels in them, and other things. This isn't MY interpretation because mine is that it's a torture device, it is Christians who make a torture device into a positive thing. I guess only they could do that since most of them have a preconceived notion that they are always right. Like you.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

If all we need are words to remind someone of something, then why do people need to post that picture of a starving African child being watched by a vulture? I mean, the words should be more than sufficient, right? Or how about the picture of that Chinese student standing down a tank in Tienanmen Square?

The fact is that people do better with visual reminders of something, rather than just words. Thus why we have the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". And just because it's a visual reminder you disagree with, for whatever reason, isn't a good reason to act like they shouldn't use it.

If all we need are words to remind someone of something, then why do people need to post that picture of a starving African child being watched by a vulture? I mean, the words should be more than sufficient, right? Or how about the picture of that Chinese student standing down a tank in Tienanmen Square?

The fact is that people do better with visual reminders of something, rather than just words. Thus why we have the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". And just because it's a visual reminder you disagree with, for whatever reason, isn't a good reason to act like they shouldn't use it.

So we need skyscraper size crosses, and statues of Jesus, churches with crosses on them, in them, and a bevy of liken images all over the planet to remind us that Jesus died a horrific death on a cross?

Please...a picture is one thing statues and giant crosses that can be seen miles away, is another.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

If all we need are words to remind someone of something, then why do people need to post that picture of a starving African child being watched by a vulture? I mean, the words should be more than sufficient, right? Or how about the picture of that Chinese student standing down a tank in Tienanmen Square?

That's the thing I guess...I honestly do see a danger of people forgetting about starving children in the world. People get caught up in their daily lives and can quite easily forget to think of others that have no direct impact on them. So we push pictures like starving children to the forefront to remind people that, yes, there is indeed other suffering in the world outside of your normal purview.

But someone who truly believes that god exists, sent his only son to be tortured and sacrifice for your salvation and gift of eternal life...I mean, I honestly do not see people forgetting about that. That whole schtick is something that is supposed to be informing a person how to approach life - it just doesn't seem like something that needs a reminder. It seems like something that is at the forefront of someone's day-to-day...isn't it?

Quote

The fact is that people do better with visual reminders of something, rather than just words. Thus why we have the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". And just because it's a visual reminder you disagree with, for whatever reason, isn't a good reason to act like they shouldn't use it.

Personally, if they feel they need that symbolism, that reminder, that's fine. I'm quite certain I keep around commemorative trinkets and such that others would find silly or, perhaps, even inappropriate. The fact of the matter is, as I was raised Catholic, I do not view such symbolism as a torture device - more of a "look what club I'm in" badge. In the same way that the swastika is generally associated with a symbol of intolerance and hatred (as opposed to a symbol representing well-being), so is the symbol of a long-haired guy wearing a crown of thorns nailed on a wood cross generally associated with 'being Christian'.

I really don't think that the symbol functions as any kind of a 'reminder' for a Christian though. I really think it serves more as a piece of uniform to keep them associated with the club.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Not only is this woman, putatively a Christian, praising torture, but she is comparing it to a holy sacrament of the Christian faith. ...If I thought that kind of hateful declaration and abuse of the Christian religion was what conservatism stood for, I wouldn’t be able to call myself a conservative.

I think most people do not see the cross as endorsing widespread torture, but more as a reminder of the tortured. They side with jesus H, not the Romans, right? So I really think your thesis is a stretch, Nam. I think that is where Rod and other xians who find Palin's crass statement sacreligious and offensive are coming from.

The widespread display of the cross isn't intended to celebrate or promote torture. It's used to remind Christians that Jesus died on a cross to take our punishment upon Himself.

Silly question:

Do you honestly think that there are Christians out there who would be in danger of forgetting that the son of god was tortured and died for your salvation without a visual reminder? Or is this more of a 'brand reinforcement' sorta thing?

It's unlikely that Christians would entirely forget, I agree, but I know from personal experience that seeing it often helps re-enforce for me, not just that Jesus died on the cross, but the resultant way in which I ought to live as a response to that.

As for brand reinforcement: sadly, there are most definitely retailers who market Christian products (not just crosses, but all manner of trinkets with bible verses etc) as just another way to meet a market. That has always pissed me off.

What she said was very serious. Horrific. Terrible. Diabolical. Not silly.

and that's why no one should be surprised it came out of her noise-hole

Logged

Organized religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash the kneecaps of anyone who doesn't show proper deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

So we need skyscraper size crosses, and statues of Jesus, churches with crosses on them, in them, and a bevy of liken images all over the planet to remind us that Jesus died a horrific death on a cross?

Apparently Christians do, or at least they desire such things.

Quote from: Nam

Please...a picture is one thing statues and giant crosses that can be seen miles away, is another.

Don't take it so literally. A picture, a statue, a memorial...it all amounts to the same thing.

I agree with you that giant crosses that can be seen for miles away are excessive, but the point is that it's not my money that went into it, nor is it yours. It's theirs. And if they're the sort of person to put up something like that to begin with, then they're not the sort of person to care very much if someone disapproves.

It's unlikely that Christians would entirely forget, I agree, but I know from personal experience that seeing it often helps re-enforce for me, not just that Jesus died on the cross, but the resultant way in which I ought to live as a response to that.

Silly follow-up questions:In those circumstances, do you think that looking to an image of just a picture of Jesus[1], or, perhaps, a picture of Jesus healing someone, would have had a different effect on you insofar as a reminder? Or a picture of baby Jesus in the manger?

Quote

As for brand reinforcement: sadly, there are most definitely retailers who market Christian products (not just crosses, but all manner of trinkets with bible verses etc) as just another way to meet a market. That has always pissed me off.

You don't think those trinkets can serve the same purpose as the imagery of the cross serves for you? That is the market, after all, isn't it? People who want to buy religious paraphernalia to remind themselves of their own faith? Or is this indignation[2] in response to a different market - people selling religious trinkets to people who are likely buying 'religious flair' to show off their religiousness?

Quote

See above. This Christian at least knows that isn't the case at all.

And I am corrected. Perhaps I should have stated it thusly:I really don't think that, for at least some Christians, the symbol functions as any kind of a 'reminder' for them. I really think, for at least some, it serves more as a piece of uniform to keep them associated with the club.

Perhaps too strong of a word, but it's a great word that I don't use often enough.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

In those circumstances, do you think that looking to an image of just a picture of Jesus[1], or, perhaps, a picture of Jesus healing someone, would have had a different effect on you insofar as a reminder? Or a picture of baby Jesus in the manger?

You don't think those trinkets can serve the same purpose as the imagery of the cross serves for you? That is the market, after all, isn't it? People who want to buy religious paraphernalia to remind themselves of their own faith? Or is this indignation[2] in response to a different market - people selling religious trinkets to people who are likely buying 'religious flair' to show off their religiousness?

Perhaps too strong of a word, but it's a great word that I don't use often enough.

Some of the trinkets etc may well serve a positive purpose for some people. My indignation (not too strong a word) comes from personal experience working in the Christian gift industry, and is probably rather biased and subjective, so I won't dwell on it.

Christians are desensitized with the cross because most or of their life it's been shoved in their face, hung around their necks, and told that it represents who they are. Whether the cross was created by the Romans is irrelevant, after their precious lord and saviour was tortured on it they adopted it as their symbol. That's idiotic. You don't see Jews going around with swastikas on their walls, hanging around their necks all because that image affected a great deal on their people. You don't see them adopting concentration camps, gas chambers, etc., as signs of peace--that'd be ridiculous. Do they also have pyramids hanging on their necks, or stapled to their synagogues? No. Because that'd be ridiculous.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

When I was a JW we were taught that wearing crosses or displaying crucifixes was repugnant. If we really loved Jesus and thought that his death was truly a sacrifice, we should not go around wearing the symbol of his death on a pretty necklace or use it as a decoration in the home.

I remember the argument: if your best friend was shot to death while protecting you, would you wear a tiny silver gun as jewelry to remember his sacrifice? Or if your father was wrongly executed by a dictatorship due to his refusing to betray your whereabouts, would you display an electric chair or noose on your wall?

It does seem creepy and medieval to use an image of the way someone died as the symbol of their sacrifice. To an outsider, whether atheist or just non-Christian, it is definitely a sign of belonging to the cool kids club. Like displaying your country's flag or knowing the secret handshake.

But I also realize that meanings change over time-- maybe in a few hundred years the swastika will once again be a symbol of life like it was in ancient India. Who knows?

I didn't even bother to comment on Sarah Palin's remark. If there really was a godTM[1], she would have been turned into a pillar of salt or spontaneously combusted or been abducted permanently by aliens long ago. But no, she is still walking around on the planet, saying idiotic things and getting press attention.

you know, an all powerful, all good super being who made everything and knows everything past present and future and who cares about us and wants us to know about it and live forever with it in paradise

Funny how if you ask one Christian from each of the 38K different denominations,you will get a different answer from each one. They may be similar in nature with only subtle differences,but there WILL be different views.

Funny how now even churches are trying to separate themselves from the nutty things politicians of the same views(Christian)say. This does go both ways though,when a politician is tied to a fundy group that states something that differs from the majority,they can't distance themselves fast enough.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

I didn't even bother to comment on Sarah Palin's remark. If there really was a godTM[1], she would have been turned into a pillar of salt or spontaneously combusted or been abducted permanently by aliens long ago. But no, she is still walking around on the planet, saying idiotic things and getting press attention.

you know, an all powerful, all good super being who made everything and knows everything past present and future and who cares about us and wants us to know about it and live forever with it in paradise

funny how God will not "kill directly",the pillar of salt a good example,but will kill indirectly with a weather "disturbance" like a 2 mile wide tornado right in the middle of "Bible country".

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Like the giant cross that fell on the guy and killed him? Is that a sign from god or what? My guess is that religious people will all chorus, "Or what. Mere coincidence. Move along. Nothing to see here."

Now, if a small cross ever falls on, say Richard Dawkins, and gives him a slight bruise on the arm, the Christians will jump for joy and fill the intertubes with "see what god does to evil atheists" type comments.

I remember the argument: if your best friend was shot to death while protecting you, would you wear a tiny silver gun as jewelry to remember his sacrifice? Or if your father was wrongly executed by a dictatorship due to his refusing to betray your whereabouts, would you display an electric chair or noose on your wall?

It does seem creepy and medieval to use an image of the way someone died as the symbol of their sacrifice. To an outsider, whether atheist or just non-Christian, it is definitely a sign of belonging to the cool kids club. Like displaying your country's flag or knowing the secret handshake.

But I also realize that meanings change over time-- maybe in a few hundred years the swastika will once again be a symbol of life like it was in ancient India. Who knows?

I was going to suggest the Jews adopt the swastika as their (crucifix) symbol. Imagine that???